Greenfield's defenders - and the scientist herself - say that she has been misrepresented, that sensationalist journalists may have distorted her measured attempts to prompt discussion and highlight gaps in research. Certainly headline writers have had a field day with her claims - a quick search of The Daily Mail finds:

Strong stuff, but the relationship between title and content in newspaper articles is often obscure, and in her interview with Frank Swain for New Scientist Greenfield declares (my emphasis)1:

"I didn't say, and I've been misquoted universally, that [technology] rots the brain and it's bad, I've never given value judgements, ever."

"I've never given value judgments, ever" is a pretty strong claim, so let's look at two newspaperarticles penned by Greenfield herself. These are articles which she presumably either wrote, or was willing to put her name to. Here is a selection of quotes from them:

"a world without long-term relationships, where people are unable to understand the consequences of their actions or empathise with one another [...] is a plausible future."

"...we are developing an ever deeper dependence on websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Second Life - and these technologies can alter the way our minds work."

"One effect, the fragmentation of our culture, is already occurring: the violent videos posted on YouTube."

Our brains are "under threat", the 21st century is "doing damage" to our brains, we are already seeing "fragmentation of our culture." If Greenfield doesn't stand by this stuff - written under her byline - then she should make it very clear; because if these aren't value judgements about the negative impact of technology then I'm an Ewok.

This matters because if she is going to make these claims, she needs to be able to back them up with evidence. The New Scientist interview is revealing in that, when directly asked to produce some, Greenfield points vaguely to "an increase in people with autistic spectrum disorders ... issues with happy-slapping, the rise in the appeal of Twitter."

The two studies that are cited don't provide much support. One looks at brain structure in people with 'internet addiction disorder,' a condition whose potential classification as a psychological disorder is highly controversial (many argue it's simply a manifestation of other problems), and in any case not relevant unless she believes most people will become addicted to the internet.

The second, a 2010 review by Daphne Bavelier in the journal Neuron, is a fascinating piece of work far more nuanced than Greenfield's treatment of it would suggest, arguing that our understanding of technological influences on the brain is in its infancy, and showing that the effects are often very positive. It's worth noting that if Greenfield put forward the same, balanced arguments for more research made by Bavelier, few of her critics would have a problem with it. It's sensible to look at the impact of technology on our brains, it's not sensible to make huge claims about the impact to the public before you've researched it.

Technology and autism

This is technically true, but it's pretty clear that she connects the two. In response to the question (paraphrasing) "what evidence is there that digital technology is having an impact on our brains?" she points to "an increase in people with autistic spectrum disorders."

"I point to the increase in esophageal cancer and I point to The Brady Bunch. That's all. #greenfieldism"

This of course spawned an amusing Twitter meme, documented at Zimmer's blog. The serious point though is this: how in the name of holy Jesus is what you say not implying a link?!

Oxford neuropsychologist Dr. Dorothy Bishop took a more direct approach and published an open letter to her Oxford colleague. In it she points out that the rise in autism diagnoses dates to before internet use became common, that autism usually emerges in toddlers "long before children become avid users of Twitter or Facebook," and that much of the rise in autism cases can be explained by "changes in diagnostic criteria."

Bishop's letter also neatly explains why these scare stories are so upsetting:

"You may not realise just how much illogical garbage and ill-formed speculation parents of children with these conditions are exposed to. Over the years, they've been told that their children's problems are caused by their cold style of interaction, inoculations, dental amalgams, faulty diets, allergies, drinking in pregnancy - the list is endless. Now we can add to this list internet use.

Greenfield's response to this was weak, failing to address the points and questioning Bishop's right to criticize her:

"We are colleagues, after all, and I have a lot of respect for Dr Bishop's work. However, it's not really for Dorothy to comment on how I run my career."

But Dorothy can comment as much as she pleases, because we are not just talking about Greenfield's private career. We are talking about statements made in the national press by a public figure, claims which are unsubstantiated, and could be extremely upsetting or confusing for parents of autistic children. Hence Ben Goldacre's plea in January 2010:

"If you believe that computers - which are widespread - pose a serious environmental hazard to children, then you have a responsibility to your peers and most importantly the public to present your theory clearly and formally in an academic journal, so your scientific peers can assess it."

18 months later, Ben's suggestion remains ignored, and Dr. Bishop's concerns have been airily dismissed. If Greenfield really wants to start a debate, then she should be happy that a growing queue of people are ready and willing to take part.

- - - - - -

1 It's brilliant that Frank posts the full audio of his interview online, as editors at New Scientist edited this quote for space and lost a lot of its nuance and meaning in the process, ending up with: "I didn't say that technology rots the brain; I would never make a value judgement." It's also interesting that New Scientist edit out Greenfield's claim that the Nominet trust report which found that "there is no neurological evidence that the internet is more effective at 'rewiring' our brains than other environmental influences." was biased. Return to text.